NBC’s Bob Costas destroys Penn State’s Jerry Sandusky in interview

For the last two weeks, I’ve been unable to look away from the real-life horror story that is the child rape scandal involving former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, and the cover-up allegedly perpetrated by legendary head coach Joe Paterno and various members of the administration (most of whom have been fired or put on leave). As a parent – hell, as a human – it’s absolutely disgusting, and yet I keep reading every story, keep watching every clip, in the desperate but futile hope that it will eventually be revealed that someone, anyone, actually tried to do the right thing in this mess.

(If you’ve managed to stay away from this story, more power to you, and feel free to skip the rest. I just can’t stop.)

Whatever Paterno and the administrators did or didn’t do, Sandusky is the alleged monster at the middle of this, and I got queasy at the thought of NBC giving him a primetime venue in the form of a telephone interview with Bob Costas on last night’s “Rock Center with Brian Williams.” Yet, as with everything about this story, I couldn’t look away. I had seen Costas go into interviews before where he so clearly felt he was on the side of the angels that he didn’t do the proper prep work – like a 2001 HBO interview with Vince McMahon where McMahon ran circles around an under-researched Costas – and I worried that Sandusky and his lawyer might actually get over on Costas.

In this case, though, Costas was damn near perfect. He had all the facts at his command, was ready with the right follow-up questions, and just kept giving Sandusky rope that the alleged pedophile seemed happy to hang himself with. Sandusky’s stammering, agonizingly clumsy response to Costas’ question about whether he’s sexually attracted to young boys should pretty much kill any attempt to paint himself as the wronged party. The whole thing was just remarkably bungled by Sandusky’s lawyer, and brilliantly handled by Costas in full prosecutorial mode.

A good interview (you can watch the whole thing below) doesn’t ease the pain of the victims. It doesn’t make the story any less nauseating. It doesn’t get anyone their job back. But it was a welcome 10-minute bit of catharsis. Here’s the ultimate villain of this story, and he’s talking, and he’s being absolutely destroyed by his interviewer. Far from a happy ending, but a welcome step on the road to hopefully getting justice.

Join The Discussion: Log In With

Is it weird that I was extremely interested to read your review of the interview, but turned the interview itself off when it came on the air last night and absolutely cannot watch it even now? It’s just too creepy.

By: Chip Christian

11.15.2011 @ 3:38 PM

Yeah, I’ve been ignoring the whole thing from the beginning, but Alan makes me think about paying attention!

By: troopermsu

11.15.2011 @ 6:34 PM

Ignoring child abuse stories is a big reason why pedophiles can operate the way they do. They count on the rest of us being so uncomfortable that the problem doesn’t get discussed. We need to talk about this A LOT MORE. As disgusting as it is, the more we talk about it, the more people will realize the extent of the problem. Hopefully this will lead to more people, adults and children, recognizing the warning signs and thereby fewer kids getting hurt.

By: Jimmbo

11.16.2011 @ 12:58 AM

“They count on the rest of us being so uncomfortable that the problem doesn’t get discussed”

Whatever can be done to prevent child abuse, I’m all for. But I disagree quite vehemently that the issue is shunted aside in our society.

I’m a single middle-aged man who’s lived in several suburban communities. If I so much look at a child or speak to a child, that child’s parents will immediately call him/her back home. And most of the kids will not go near me. They’ve obviously been instructed to steer clear.

Meeting children of acquaintances (not close friends), I often find myself under the withering, almost accusatory gaze of the mothers as I interact with them. They watch me like a hawk.

I love kids, but I’ve been forced to adjust to the notion of never, ever, ever having anything at all to do with a kid who’s not a close relative or the child of a good friend.

@ Jimmbo: Do you look the mothers right back, eye to eye? If not, why not?

By: Jimmbo

11.16.2011 @ 3:00 PM

I do not, because they’re right to be protective. Better for strangers to be humiliated than to take a chance of having kids destroyed.

By: bigperm33

11.15.2011 @ 2:50 PM

One questions this raises for me – if Sandusky is willing to talk, with a lawyer there, why is Paterno still hiding behind a lawyer? Paterno cancelled a press conference and blamed it on the university; he then was fired and still said nothing. He then quickly hired a criminal lawyer and has remained silent. Sandusky is the villain, but I feel like the criminal justice system will take care of him. I want to know about the cover up – Joe, why in 1999, did you suddenly decide that your long-time top assistant had “no chance” to ever be the head coach?

By: Adam B.

11.15.2011 @ 2:53 PM

Sandusky was dumb to talk. Paterno’s doing the right thing, so far — there’s a time and place for him to talk, but not yet.

By: Ben Kabak

11.15.2011 @ 3:54 PM

We have lawyers in this country for a reason. Speaking as one, you should always use one. Too much liability even if you are right.

By: Dan

11.15.2011 @ 4:09 PM

He didn’t “blame it on the university” to be fair… the university truly was the one to cancel the press conference.

By: ChampSkins

11.15.2011 @ 4:23 PM

Even though I assume everything Sandusky said was a lie… he did say Paterno never said anything to him about the accusations. Which all but confirms that Joe Pa simply turned the other way in this whole scenario if that was true.

How could you not confront someone you have known for 40 years over something so extreme?

By: ABrens

11.15.2011 @ 4:55 PM

Well.. Paterno is 84 and not exactly lucid, if you haven’t noticed. He hasn’t been able to coherently articulate himself for the greater part of the last decade

By: joel

11.15.2011 @ 5:52 PM

@Champskins: If Paterno said nothing, that would be truly shocking. Sandusky is trying to do some sort of very foolish and misguided damage control here. I don’t believe anything he has said (other than his expression of regret for the damage he has caused to Paterno and university), and I wouldn’t believe that particular comment either.

By: Nicholas

11.15.2011 @ 10:15 PM

“ABrens Well.. Paterno is 84 and not exactly lucid, if you haven’t noticed. He hasn’t been able to coherently articulate himself for the greater part of the last decade.”

Yet he is the highest paid person at Penn State University! That alone is wrong.

By: gb5

11.16.2011 @ 1:55 PM

And makes a lot less than most of the college coaches that people would know

By: the minister

11.21.2011 @ 5:30 AM

“I feel like the criminal justice system will take care of him.”

If you mean he’s gonna get shanked in the joint within a month, yeah, you’re right. That or solitary.

By: Jared

11.15.2011 @ 2:51 PM

It took him 16.3 seconds to answer No to the question about whether he was attracted to young boys. That’s all you need to know about this pedophile and his guilt.

By: Mr. T

11.15.2011 @ 3:21 PM

“I enjoy young people.” So creepy.

By: Victoria Johnson

11.15.2011 @ 4:52 PM

Exactly…he is too dumb to even lie.

By: TJ

11.15.2011 @ 5:28 PM

His answer to that question was the most surreal moment of the night. And despite an early “no” thrown into some transcripts I’ve read, I heard it like this (stammers kept in for full effect):

“Am I sexually attracted to underage boys? Sexually attracted? You know, I-I enjoy young people. I-I love to be around them. Um, I-I—but no, I’m not sexually attracted to young boys.”

I mean… yeesh.

By: Tracey

11.15.2011 @ 7:59 PM

@TJ: He says “no” to the initial questin, “are you a pedophile.” But he takes a long time to respond to the follow-up question: “are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?” And yes, he repeats that one. And I couldn’t help but think of a recent Dilbert comic (11/8), where Dilbert asks the boss a question and the boss repeats it, and Dilbert says, “When you repeat my question it means the next thing you say will be a lie.”

By: Adam B.

11.15.2011 @ 2:51 PM

If you’re ever in a situation where an interviewer is going to ask you if you’re sexually attracted to young boys, you should decline to do the interview. If you choose to do it anyway, prepare an answer for that question that begins with “No” or “Hell no.”

By: bryan-a

11.15.2011 @ 3:02 PM

uh, yeah-

if somebody asks you if your a pedophile ray say NO.

By: Tedd

11.15.2011 @ 2:53 PM

Sandusky’s attorney (Joseph Amendola) said that he would trust Sandusky with his kids. For his part, Amendola apparently got a sixteen-year old girl pregnant when he was 49. Even more disturbing? He had been her lawyer when for her emancipation from her parents. Source here: [www.theatlanticwire.com]

Yeah.

By: Jared

11.15.2011 @ 2:55 PM

Creepy pedos gotta stick together. This whole story just keeps getting more and more sick. The judge who gave him bail and let him go instead of sticking him in jail was a volunteer with his Second Mile Charity.

By: Carlos

11.15.2011 @ 3:04 PM

Pedos like prepubescent kids, not 17 year olds. The attorney’s a creep, but not a pedo.

By: LJA

11.15.2011 @ 4:55 PM

Sorry, Carlos, a 49yo man knocking up a 16yo girl is a pedo in my book.

Thanks for that info, Tedd. I wonder if that’s the only guy Sandusky could get to represent him?

By: ABrens

11.15.2011 @ 5:00 PM

Pedophilia is officially classified as sexual interest in prepubescent children. A 16 year old doesn’t fit the bill. Creepy? As hell. Pedophile? Not according to what a pedophile actually is. It’s only in recent times that interest in teenaged women has been characterized as inappropriate. The 49 year old Henry VIII married Catherine Howard when she was 16 to give one famous example.

By: LJA

11.15.2011 @ 5:32 PM

Semantics. I live now, not in the 16th century. My bad for confusing pedophilia for statutory rape.

By: M

11.15.2011 @ 6:18 PM

“Pedophilia is officially classified as sexual interest in prepubescent children.”

And since he allegedly impregnated the girl, I think we can clearly eliminate pedophilia as an accurate description.

By: gb

11.15.2011 @ 2:54 PM

Penn State cancelled Paterno’s press conference last week, not Paterno

By: Robin

11.15.2011 @ 2:54 PM

Thank you for watching Alan, so we don’t have to. I saw excerpts this morning on the news, and I could barely tolerate the excerpts. But at least this might put the spotlight back on the real perpetrator of the crime. No matter what Paterno and others should have done, Sandusky is the one being charged with child abuse.

By: Sonia

11.15.2011 @ 8:28 PM

Ugh. I just watched it. I didn’t want to, but I couldn’t help myself. All I kept thinking was that Sandusky’s victims can’t avoid hearing his creepy voice declaring his innocence.

By: david

11.15.2011 @ 2:57 PM

Weird. Someone charged with raping kids wouldn’t be interviewed in Britain. Is this normal over there?

By: vron

11.15.2011 @ 3:04 PM

Not with competent legal representation. What kind of attorney would let his client agree to an interview in this situation? Not at ALL defending Sandusky, but I have to wonder if he purposely hired an incompetent attorney so that he could later get off on a mistrial.

By: Chip Christian

11.15.2011 @ 3:40 PM

He’s just setting himself up for the appeals process: I did not have competent legal assistance.

By: Morbo

11.15.2011 @ 4:46 PM

I can understand your disgust with giving this guy a forum, David, but there is a value to it. Like Costas showed, a skilled interviewer can give a guy like Sandusky the rope with which to hang himself. People need to see that for themselves sometimes.

By: klg19

11.16.2011 @ 1:27 PM

@ChipChristian: I had the exact same thought. Amendola is creating a situation for Sandusky where the latter can appeal based on incompetent representation.

I don’t know if this makes me a realist or a hopeless cynic, but that was my first reaction.

By: bryan-a

11.15.2011 @ 3:01 PM

Good for Costas-

As most of us here, being raised on a lot of bad television I keep thinking the only thing that makes sense to me as to why this lawyer let him talk is he discovered he was guilty and rather than resign he let him talk on national television to show the world what an evil man he is (of course at the risk of his own future disbarment)

By: Sandra

11.15.2011 @ 3:20 PM

I would have to agree with Jim. I don’t know what NBC thought it could gain by interviewing Sandusky. The creep factor was too high and now Costas is creepy by association.

By: guest

11.15.2011 @ 3:25 PM

What? Costas was as harsh to Sandusky as he could be while still maintaining a degree of objectivity. I think he handled the situation perfectly and came away looking fine.

By: Miles

11.15.2011 @ 4:35 PM

I’m not sure if you’re serious or trolling…

By: Guest

11.15.2011 @ 5:45 PM

When I said “he handled the situation perfectly and came away looking fine,” I was referring to Costas. I hope that was clear. Sandusky came away looking exactly like the piece of garbage he is.

By: brian

11.15.2011 @ 6:18 PM

What they have to gain is a whole bunch of people watching and talking about their new show. I didn’t think it was inappropriate of them, and the upside for them is obvious.

By: Guest

11.15.2011 @ 6:30 PM

I said that Costas was harsh not because I thought he was being unfair but because I thought that he was effectively distancing himself from Sandusky. Basically, I was saying that I didn’t buy Sandra’s argument that Costas was creepy by association. I’m sorry if that didn’t quite translate. I wasn’t trolling and I certainly wasn’t defending Sandusky.

By: Miles

11.15.2011 @ 11:08 PM

My original reply was intended for Sandra. If journalists were only allowed to interview “nice” people, we’d be an (even more) ignorant public.

By: Muz

11.15.2011 @ 3:30 PM

He’s crazy doing this. It just gives people more to talk about, and as they said, much of the country has condemned him already. Now people will just say dopey things like “See, that pregnant pause! Guilty!”. Mostly everyone thinks they’re a great judge of character and mostly everyone is wrong. That doesn’t stop them however. They’ll have to go to the jungles of Borneo for an impartial jury.
It might look bad to not talk, but if you already look bad talking only makes it worse.

By: Jonathan

11.15.2011 @ 3:43 PM

Costas got the better of Sandusky here, but on most websites the whole interview isn’t being shown. Instead, they are just posting text snippets such as Sandusky saying “No, I’m not attracted to young boys” and “I’m innocent.”

By: Jason Potapoff

11.15.2011 @ 4:44 PM

Ya on the sports highlight show I watch, the clip they showed was Sandusky denying he raped the boy nor performed oral sex but admitting he horsed around with them and after workouts showered. So it didn’t give an impression of Costa destroying Sandusky just that Sandusky denied the worst of the accusations.

By: nic919

11.15.2011 @ 3:43 PM

I can’t believe his lawyer let him talk to the press in any form. Any good lawyer would keep this guy away from the press until the criminal charges have been dealt with and the civil lawsuits are over. It is doubtful that Sandusky will testify in his own criminal trial, but he will not be able to escape giving evidence in the civil lawsuits, which we know are a certainty at this point, and he will be cross examined with what he has said in this interview. There was nothing Sandusky could say to turn the tide of public opinion, and so it was pointless to do this interview.
As for his lawyer, if the details are true about him impregnating his 17 year old client, I am astonished that the Pennsylvania Bar Association did not suspend him, much less disbar him. Maybe he was reprimanded and I have not read about it, but I find that to be disgusting as well.
Paterno is not talking because he is listening to his lawyers. Anything said in the press by Paterno would be used in a civil lawsuit, and that is Paterno’s biggest exposure right now. While there is outrage about his inaction, it is unlikely that he is criminally responsible.
I have also read somewhere that McQueary is telling colleagues that he did stop the attack he witnessed. I sincerely hope that is true and that the press just got it wrong.

By: Karyn

11.15.2011 @ 4:27 PM

I don’t trust anything that anyone in the organization is saying about their behavior at this point. It’s clear that either people didn’t think they were doing the wrong thing or desperately want it to appear that they were doing the right thing. I’m not necessarily taking McQueary to task for not doing something in the moment (that has to be a situation where you have no idea how to appropriately respond) but the fact that he didn’t do anything for years afterward while continuing to work there makes me think that he didn’t stop it in the moment either.

By: Tracey

11.15.2011 @ 7:39 PM

McQueary is telling people that he “did do something” he “made sure it stoppped,” which doesn’t necessarily mean he interrupted this specific act. He may simply mean that he reported Sandusky (and EVERYBODY agrees that he did this, though it’s not clear in how much detail) and that because of this Sandusky was not able to continue molesting boys on the Penn State campus.

Really, I think McQueary was the one person who did the right thing here. He was a graduate student, somebody with no power in the university. He reported what he saw to an authority figure who he trusted to handle the situation. It takes a lot of courage for a college student to report a coach/teacher, especially a popular football coach at Penn State, and I think people are being way to hard on him.

By: Andrei

11.15.2011 @ 7:41 PM

The original McQueary story was taken from his grand jury testimony, so if he is saying now that he stopped it, the question becomes “were you lying then or lying now?”

By: Andrei

11.15.2011 @ 7:45 PM

Tracey, I get where your’e coming from regarding McQueary, and I think the reason he hasn’t been fired is his whistleblower status (or as a deal for testimony at Sandusky’s trial).

However, the bottom line is – can he look that victim (or any of the alleged later victims) in the eye and say that he truly did everything he could?

By: A

11.16.2011 @ 1:03 PM

Tracey, as Jon Stewart said, the right thing is to stop it and call the cops or call the cops to come stop it.

By: LizC

11.16.2011 @ 11:57 PM

I’ve got to disagree. If there’s one person I want to see in jail as much as Sandusky it’s McQueary. He was 28. I don’t care if he was just a grad assistant. He was a 28 year old adult who knew right from wrong and if he did nothing because he was scared and thought reporting it to an authority figure was all he needed to do? No. Sorry. He did nothing right.

By: Adam

11.15.2011 @ 3:46 PM

The question I have still is “How did NBC get the interview?” There’s not a news org. in the world who turns that down. So why NBC? Did they pay for it? Did they pay someone who could be a match-maker between them and Sandusky?

Giving an accused child rapist that platform requires more back story for how NBC ended up getting it.

By: david

11.15.2011 @ 3:57 PM

In the world? I think I’m the only person outside America to have heard of the case, tbh.

By: Eric AkaWIE

11.15.2011 @ 4:15 PM

Given the timing of the interview, as counter-programming to the Gabrielle Giffords interview (not to mention it being the only thing to bring any notice to Rock Center since it’s premiere,) I would expect that some money changed hands, yes.

By: Charlotte

11.15.2011 @ 8:20 PM

David, it’s definitely not big news outside the US, but people have heard of it. I live in the UK, and coworkers have mentioned it to me, because they know I grew up in Pennsylvania.

By: nic919

11.16.2011 @ 2:21 AM

It has been pretty big news in Canada and getting coverage on the major networks and front pages of the newspapers here.

By: Karyn

11.15.2011 @ 4:24 PM

I can’t believe that his lawyer actually let him do that interview. It was a bad idea for him on so many levels (but probably good in general if it gets the likely-guilty man put away more easily).

By: lztouchthedream

11.15.2011 @ 4:32 PM

As someone who just finished watching Friday Night Lights, I can’t help but think how much I would have liked to see that show tackle (no pun intended) something like this. It may not have made sense for it to be happening on Coach Taylor’s current team, but perhaps a colleague from earlier in his career gets caught, and some unsympathetic boosters raise questions about Eric’s knowledge of events.

By: virginia

11.15.2011 @ 5:48 PM

Buzz Bissinger has written on the matter in the last week or so. And been interviewed on tv. His comments are right on in every respect.

By: lztouchthedream

11.15.2011 @ 7:08 PM

Thanks for the heads up, great piece!

By: dylanfan

11.15.2011 @ 4:45 PM

I give NBC high marks for airing the interview up front and not making viewers endure teasers for most of the hour.

By: studioplant

11.15.2011 @ 5:06 PM

As a person who knows justice must be pursued, I agree this needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. As a man and a father, of simialy aged children as the victims in this case. I had to turn off the interview. To graphic for me.

By: Rev. Slappy

11.15.2011 @ 5:10 PM

I’ve been trying to press upon people for the past week and a half that there are serious flaws in our laws and procedures as it relates to reporting suspected child abuse. I taught high school and coach sports for ten years and given a similar set of circumstances (somebody comes to me saying they saw a retired coach in the shower sodomizing a kid) I would have done what Paterno did and reported it to my building principal. It’s what school officials are trained to do. We need to change these laws so that rather than requiring “report it to your supervisor” it becomes “report it to the police and then your supervisor.” I’ve been trying to encourage people for a week to call the schools where there kids go and ask them how they go about reporting abuse to the proper authorities. I will bet that at almost all schools it’s the same “report it to your boss” type of policy. Parents need to start saying, “Nope. Not good enough” and get these deeply flawed laws and procedures changed so any suspected exploitation of children goes to the right people first and then to your boss after it’s been properly reported first.

By: blingbling

11.16.2011 @ 8:22 AM

I’ve never worked inside a school system, so I can’t speak to the culture and procedures you describe. So maybe that’s why it’s astonishing to hear you call for “a change in laws” to change the outcome of a situation like the Sandusky affair. Are these internal procedures you describe actually backed up by criminal law in your community? I would be shocked if they were.

I mean, if all the circumstances are correct so far, McQueary witnessed a CRIME and he didn’t do what all citizens are expected to do in such a situation, which is call a cop. What “laws” or “procedures” in your school system would actually supercede that responsibility?

Is the culture in elementary, secondary and higher education so warped these days that no one actually knows the right thing to do in a situation like this? Or is it a matter of everyone being so afraid for their jobs that they just blame a lack of correct action on the system?

Either answer is terrifying.

By: bilythkid

11.15.2011 @ 5:28 PM

I completely agree with you, there was some catharsas.. Bob Costas was superb – didnt let Sandusky off the hook, asked all the right questions and even some I didnt think of…Sandusky sounded depressed, he sounded guilty, like he wants to admit it all and just get it over with…excellent…Bravo Bob Coastas! I hope the prosecutors were paying attention…

By: bilythkid

11.15.2011 @ 5:29 PM

I completely agree with you, there was some catharsas.. Bob Costas was superb – didnt let Sandusky off the hook, asked all the right questions and even some I didnt think of…Sandusky sounded depressed, he sounded guilty, like he wants to admit it all and just get it over with…excellent…Bravo Bob Coastas! I hope the prosecutors were paying attention…

By: virginia

11.15.2011 @ 5:43 PM

A national scandal of massive proportions. Thanks for your comments. I too am transfixed by it.

By: DAG

11.15.2011 @ 7:11 PM

Alan,

I am glad to see you correctly referring to the Penn State situation as “child rape scandal” It amazes me how many “journalists” keep saying “sex scandal” It makes me furious! A sex scandal is when the football coach is hooking up with the 22 year old Cheerleader.. This was a grown man raping children. Using “abuse” even sounds like it’s minimizing the horror chronicled in the grand jury report.

I agree that Costas did well. And was also a bit sick with myself for allowing this sicko/monster to have a voice on TV..

This story is going to unlike any we have seen. If the news media can make the Casey Anthony case (which I did not follow) a daily focus for months how will this one play out? Not to minimize the case about the killing of a child but this will dwarf that in “new coverage.” In terms of size and angles the Anthony story consisted of the mother, her parents the child and i think a couple other people. For the Penn State child rape scandal there are at least 8 victims (and i’m sure way more), their families, the missed opportunities, the cover up angle that has already identified 5 potential people of focus including an icon. Plus the importance of football on college campuses.. the reaction of the Penn State community…. And we have just scratched the surface.

By: hipo

11.16.2011 @ 4:25 AM

DAG, I emphatically second this. Thank you, Alan.

By: Steve Marantz

11.15.2011 @ 8:43 PM

“damn near perfect”.
hardly.
Costas asked too many close-ended questions – which elicit yes/no responses rather than information. He missed obvious and necessary follow-ups, and didn’t reference nearly enough of the grand jury testimony. The most you can say is that it was okay given the standards of TV celebrity interviewers, and the unplanned circumstances. But not up to the standards of good print reporters.

By: Rick

11.16.2011 @ 12:20 AM

That’s exactly it, though. Costas isn’t a print reporter- he’s a television broadcaster conducting a televised interview. To dismiss him as only up to ‘the standards of tv celebrity interviewers’ diminishes how good Costas is at his job.
Alan is okay given the standards of television critics, but not up to the standards of good romantic novelists.
See how that works?

By: Sonde Laton

11.16.2011 @ 4:51 AM

Is there ANYONE out there who believes the “horse play” explanation? Really? When the devil says to Sandusky just step inside for a moment, it’s just a little warm in here, he’ll see how he sounded.

By: kuoirad

11.16.2011 @ 6:08 AM

Costas apparently was only supposed to interview the lawyer. Said lawyer suggested 10-15 minutes before they went on that maybe he could get Sandusky on the phone.

such a shame….so many people suffered because of one mans perverted sick twisted impulses…the victims, the families, all those related to PSU…students, faculty, employees, the community, need I go on? Fact is this…Sandusky and his lawyer dont have a prayer, may God have mercy on their souls. I live less than an hour from Penn State, I never bled Blue and White but respected what Joe Paterno did for the University and the Football team. Prepare yourselves for the worse…its going to get extremely trying as time goes on because this scandal hasn’t even scratched the surface on how many people were involved. God Bless….